De Haverleij

De Haverleij (Photographer: Michiel van Raaij) (click-2-enlarge)

There are architecture photographers that refuse to photograph anything from November up to February. In their view the long shadows and dimmed light intensity of the winter season compromises their work. The effect is that - in the architecture media - not only the sun always shines, but that it is also never winter.

How difficult it is to photograph architecture in the winter became apparent when I examined the photographs I took this week on a visit to ‘de Haverleij’, a newly developed neighborhood in the south of the Netherlands. On site the weather seemed clear. On the photographs however shadows darken the ground and the facades. Even more painful is the light, that somehow takes the depth from the compositions. Will there ever be a function in Photoshop with which we could turn the winter on the photographs into the summer?

In the meantime I kind of like the photographs for advertising the season. The neighborhood on the photographs is a suburban development of the city of Den Bosch. The masterplan for the area has been designed by Sjoerd Soeters, one of the few postmodern architects in the Netherlands. When the municipality of Den Bosch in the nineties asked Sjoerd Soeters to come up with ideas for the expansion of the city, he suggested to build a series of ‘castles’ that would leave the landscape open.

Now, at the end of 2008, six ‘castles’ plus a ‘citadel’ have been build. The construction of another three castles has just been started. Instead of a sea of low-rise housing, a neighborhood has emerged where a differentiated, yet continuous, landscape is punctuated with medium-rise housing complexes. The sheer is space is just magnificent!

One of the elements that make the plan work is the sharply cut perimeter of the buildings. With only one or two entrances from the surrounding landscape the architecture stands apart from it. Pretty much each house looks out over the landscape, but doesn’t touch it. The houses have balconies and terraces, no gardens.

The castles of ‘de Haverleij’ could be considered to be a continuation of the Modernist planning, favoring a continuous landscape and communal housing complexes. There are significant differences between ‘de Haverleij’ and the Modernist city too though. Differences that in my view shed some light over the failure of Modernism.

When travelling to ‘de Haverleij’ by bus, I passed through the post-war neighborhoods of Den Bosch. What struck me was the density and the poverty in architecture - rows and rows of boxy social housing. By contrast, ‘de Haverleij’ has a very low overall density and features a careful and distinct architecture. Each building has a different layout and a different architecture.

An example. I love the urban design by Rob Krier in the ‘citadel’ – even though I am certainly not a protagonist of traditional architecture. The urban design shows a great concern with public space works and how it can be materialized. I also have to (painfully) admit I like the brickwork of the facades. The detailing of it distracts from the fact that the composition of the facades refer to a tradition that really existed in Holland. It is bullshit that is nicely detailed.

Another difference with the Modernist city is that in ‘de Haverleij’ you stumble over the Porsche’s and Maserati’s. In a neighborhood where nobody has a garden. The fact that almost a third of the landscape is occupied by a 18-hole golf course has probably something to do with it. The golf course has been draped between three of the castles and the citadel. As a tissue the golf course blends in with the grasslands, the wood, the fields with hedges and the water lined with reed. What sets the golf course apart is that it is inaccessible when you are not a member.

What I find the most beautiful aspect of the design, is how the landscape seamlessly continues into the countryside to the east and the river delta to the north. ‘De Haverleij’ shows how city and landscape can mingle into a new, powerful synthesis.

About this entry

Comments are closed

Comments are currently closed on this entry.

Rock01.01.09 / 2am

Wow! Thank you for posting this. I hadn’t heard of this project before now. :)

I’m a big fan of this, from reading your post and looking at your pictures. I think the use of the castle motif is a really clever way of internalizing the functions of the developments without making them seem restrictive at all. Castles are so ingrained in Western culture that having limited access seems quite natural. But since the landscape around these is obviously meant to be used (golf course), I think it’s even better how the castle motif allows the buildings which actually operate more like nature lodges or clubhouses, which are usually pretty open to the outside flow wise, to be more restricted without *seeming* so restricted. I think it’s a clever way to reduce the amount landscaping needed.

There are some aerial photographs of the plan if you navigate to “Actueel” and then to “Luchtfoto’s”. These photographs give a very insightful view on the composition of the buildings.

Happy new year!

Rock01.02.09 / 11pm

Thank you for the link. Excellent air photos and renders on the site. The effect is even more convincing from the air… aside from there being so many fortresses right next to each other. :P

liberty bell01.05.09 / 6am

Yes, the aerial photos are great.

Last night I watched a lovely little movie called Sweet Land, about early 20th century farm life in Minnesota in the US. The farms were all separated by vast cornfields, but one could walk - for maybe 7-10 minutes? - between your farm house and your neighbors’. I was struck by that separation - your livelihood suturing you to your neighbors. This development - which I find odd and interesting - might have a similar walking experience, though of course crossing a golf course is not the same as a cornfield.

Cole01.07.09 / 11pm

this strikes a chord with me , but maybe one that is different. Here is the US, golf course neighborhoods are very popular. They are generally gated communities dotted with what we call McMansions. These mcmansions are generally an eyesore, porely built, and desirable by people who want to appear wealthy. But, not new wealth, old wealth. True mansions were built by the original wealthy of America, the American version of the Royalty in Europe, who lived in Castles. There is a similarity of intent here, of desire, but it is the application of that desire that differs. Where here, the mcmansions are mere feet apart, crammed onto tiny lots surrounding the golf courses, in this development, the land speaks more. The land is there to define the area, the neighborhood, not necessarily the dwellings.
I will look more into Soeters. Thanks!